New Gen AirShips - Hybrid Air Vehicles, UK
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SkySports
The Ballonets are there to prevent overpressurisation of the gas bag. As the craft rises and air pressure decreases. you have to dump air FROM the ballonet to stop the main gas bag overinflating. If you pumped more air IN, then you run the risk of the whole thing going "pop" as it rose
The Ballonets are there to prevent overpressurisation of the gas bag. As the craft rises and air pressure decreases. you have to dump air FROM the ballonet to stop the main gas bag overinflating. If you pumped more air IN, then you run the risk of the whole thing going "pop" as it rose
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wwyvern perhaps to be really pedantic, kites should also be included somewhere as well since they are heavier than air and use air flow for lift, but I apologise for not using the term 'powered aircraft'. 
I was aware of Sir George Cayley's glider. The account I read had the coachman resigning, but who knows for sure as these tales tend to get embellished over time.
I was aware of Sir George Cayley's glider. The account I read had the coachman resigning, but who knows for sure as these tales tend to get embellished over time.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
er, excuse me, but the first powered (though unmanned) flight was by John Stringfellow in 1848
Chard Museum
Chard Museum
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are the 30000ft winds of any interest to us?
Do you think that that is where it would be?
Seriously?
Having spent rather more time than I would like orbiting over Afghan, I can tell you that I rarely saw winds above 30kts.
I don't know if it will work, but I spent many hours thinking that it should be a balloon doing my job.
Luddites is the word I think I am looking for.
Do you think that that is where it would be?
Seriously?
Having spent rather more time than I would like orbiting over Afghan, I can tell you that I rarely saw winds above 30kts.
I don't know if it will work, but I spent many hours thinking that it should be a balloon doing my job.
Luddites is the word I think I am looking for.
Tourist
I've also stooged about at that altitude in the R1 and C130 in AFG. In fact, the winds were a major drama for the chaps jumping out of the back at significant height - the forecast was almost 180 degrees out from the actual! I've also been on the ground waiting for a MQ-1 to turn up with its ~130KTAS - add on the headwind at the time and it wasn't even making 1nm/min (<60kts groundspeed).
I thought Luddites resisted new technology - lighter than air is hardly new is it?
LJ
I've also stooged about at that altitude in the R1 and C130 in AFG. In fact, the winds were a major drama for the chaps jumping out of the back at significant height - the forecast was almost 180 degrees out from the actual! I've also been on the ground waiting for a MQ-1 to turn up with its ~130KTAS - add on the headwind at the time and it wasn't even making 1nm/min (<60kts groundspeed).
I thought Luddites resisted new technology - lighter than air is hardly new is it?
LJ
Straight from the front page of the Hybrid Air Vehicles website...
...see Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd - For Persistent Surveillance and Heavy Lift Logistics
Seems pretty easy to understand from my perspective!
LJ
The Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV) Team have re-examined the basic principles behind lighter-than-air science and applied modern technology and science to this 100 year old concept
Seems pretty easy to understand from my perspective!
LJ
From the same website; I don't understand why they are so keen to showcase what appears to be a catalogue of failed trials, failed companies and their attempts to market a flawed concept...!
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you see in that timeline a howler like "Hydrid air vehicle..." it does beg the questions of (1) how good are they at attention to detail and (2) what else have they got wrong?
That chart is part of their sales / marketing brief. If they can't get that right, they can't be trusted to represent their product correctly.
That chart is part of their sales / marketing brief. If they can't get that right, they can't be trusted to represent their product correctly.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Banging my head against a wall
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo,
OK, OK, I give in. That typo has made me realise that this concept must be fatally flawed.....
You're not a staff officer in Air Command are you? As a Flt Lt in CTTO I wrote a Link 11 concept paper for 11/18 Gp which was pretty thought provoking and needed them to wake up and take certain actions. It came back with 3 incorrect apostrophes circled and a note castigating my punctuation - but no useful comment on the content. Taught me a lot about staff officer mentality.
As I noted in an earlier post, I have no agenda and no connection with this particular platform other than an interest in air power and an open mind. I am now withdrawing from this discussion until we see the results of the LEMV programme - at which point we can judge it on real world performance rather than the quality of the marketing literature. If it turns out to have no operational value I'm sure you will let me know....
OK, OK, I give in. That typo has made me realise that this concept must be fatally flawed.....
You're not a staff officer in Air Command are you? As a Flt Lt in CTTO I wrote a Link 11 concept paper for 11/18 Gp which was pretty thought provoking and needed them to wake up and take certain actions. It came back with 3 incorrect apostrophes circled and a note castigating my punctuation - but no useful comment on the content. Taught me a lot about staff officer mentality.
As I noted in an earlier post, I have no agenda and no connection with this particular platform other than an interest in air power and an open mind. I am now withdrawing from this discussion until we see the results of the LEMV programme - at which point we can judge it on real world performance rather than the quality of the marketing literature. If it turns out to have no operational value I'm sure you will let me know....
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: warwickshire
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the previous 'failed projects' were because of other reasons rather than technical, as stated the Northern Ireland ones suffered due to the peace process, the USN navy, again funding cuts.
The whole argument about not going into the warzone was touted by lots of people who didn't understand what was so great about the cargo capacity of the KC-30. That's what those shiny C-17's are for right?
If you took a timeline of the flying wing, I'm sure it would look identical, a couple of successes in there, with plenty of projects that never made it past the drawing board due to financial reasons ( or most likely, people don't like the idea because it's not two wings fixed to a tube).
Needless the say the flying wing has some HUGE advantages over 'conventional' pointy aircraft.
The whole argument about not going into the warzone was touted by lots of people who didn't understand what was so great about the cargo capacity of the KC-30. That's what those shiny C-17's are for right?
If you took a timeline of the flying wing, I'm sure it would look identical, a couple of successes in there, with plenty of projects that never made it past the drawing board due to financial reasons ( or most likely, people don't like the idea because it's not two wings fixed to a tube).
Needless the say the flying wing has some HUGE advantages over 'conventional' pointy aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I don't understand is why some people are so vehemently against them. If they work, then great, if not then oh well.
I do find the idea that just because nobody has got them to work yet then we should never try again very stupid.
They have been trying unsuccessfully for nuclear fusion for a long time, but it might just be worth the effort eventually.
The first attempts to found a colony on the Americas failed, but they worked out eventually.
I do find the idea that just because nobody has got them to work yet then we should never try again very stupid.
They have been trying unsuccessfully for nuclear fusion for a long time, but it might just be worth the effort eventually.
The first attempts to found a colony on the Americas failed, but they worked out eventually.
If you took a timeline of the flying wing, I'm sure it would look identical, a couple of successes in there, with plenty of projects that never made it past the drawing board due to financial reasons ( or most likely, people don't like the idea because it's not two wings fixed to a tube).
Needless the say the flying wing has some HUGE advantages over 'conventional' pointy aircraft.
Needless the say the flying wing has some HUGE advantages over 'conventional' pointy aircraft.
The peace process didn't finish NISP - it was a technical fail as it used way more fuel than planned...
Does anyone remember when the AAC tried using an airship over Ulster, sometime late 90s/early 00s? (Can't remember exact year, getting on a bit you know....)
Yes, and if I recall correctly, it used so much fuel just to stay in one place it was deemed as non-viable.
Thats the picture we got from chatting to the guys operating it from Ballykelly when it returned very late one night, apparently quite literally running on fumes.
Yes, and if I recall correctly, it used so much fuel just to stay in one place it was deemed as non-viable.
Thats the picture we got from chatting to the guys operating it from Ballykelly when it returned very late one night, apparently quite literally running on fumes.
The Ballonets are there to prevent overpressurisation of the gas bag. As the craft rises and air pressure decreases. you have to dump air FROM the ballonet to stop the main gas bag overinflating. If you pumped more air IN, then you run the risk of the whole thing going "pop" as it rose
You never run the risk of the whole thing going "pop" because the pilot can balance the helium and air pressures using the valves in the hull skin. Should he try really really hard to "pop" the "gasbag" the valves operate in automatic mode. The same goes for the ballonet fans, the pilot is not allowed to let the hull pressure drop too radically. If the hull pressure drops, the ballonet fans kick in automatically raising the pressure in the ballonets and as a side affect increase the weight which brings the airship and crap pilot slowly back to earth.
The peace process didn't finish NISP - it was a technical fail as it used way more fuel than planned...
The high fuel consumption was known about very early in the project - years before it was deployed operationally. This was a result of all the military modifications that were carried out to an off-the-shelf passenger airship. The armour plating alone ruled out an effective endurance.
Certainly not the peace process...
Surely, the gas bag was not the issue? As the gas bag only provides bouyancy for what you want to carry - if its too heavy it will sink? As the addition of the armour still allowed NISP to leave the ground, then what is wrong with the size of the gas bags? Unless you rely upon the tiny amounts of thrust from the ducted fans? The fuel is used to move it around and I would have thought the bigger the gas bag then the more susceptable the blimp is to wind - which in turn means more fuel to keep on station? I can't see any other way around this as it is simple laws of physics? Now in the HAV's case, I could understand as the aerofoil shape produces some lift if it is thrust forward (which again uses fuel), but NISP wasn't a lifting body shape was it? But if it is heavier then it will take more oomph to move it, but the gas bags either make it float or they don't in NISP's case.
Sorry, but I think it is you that is wrong on your latter point.
By the way, here is a nifty pic of NISP Skyship 600 and the ballonets...
PS
I'm guessing here, in that you're saying that it ran out of gas doing a surveillance task when people believed it had far more endurance capability than it actually had?
The Ballykelly "fumes" incident arose from a tasty job generated by the mission equipment.
Doesn't look that big from the video and even on par scale with the helo flying past. I expected it to be a little wider as with the artists impression.
Is this bigger than P791?
Best of luck to them
Cheers
Is this bigger than P791?
Best of luck to them
Cheers
